Police Attack with Taser Sleeping Man in His Own Home

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wow.

Because that's a huge fucking difference.

Way to be totally dishonest asswipe.

It is a huge difference. Exactly where was I dishonest? Not having to justify yourself to the local media is a massive step away from not having to justify yourself at all. That is what Fingolfin_Noldor was implying, or am I mistaken?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Of course they dont have to justify their actions.

Their cops.

Why should they have to justify their actions, when those actions seem questionable...

Why indeed.

Oh shut the fuck up. Nobody is saying they don't have to justify their actions. They don't have to justify them to the local media. That's what I am saying.

Me, i'm waiting for someone to present evidence that shows we SHOULDNT believe Mr. Hicks, as all that Kamikaze Sith is doing is spraying bullshit about. Based on the information of SEVERAL news reports, this is the story of how it happened. You have not shown one iota of reason as to why it should not be believed, all you've done is talk about how we MUST not believe it bacause it CANT be true.

Oh besides the fact that the DA cleared them of any wrong doing...but that's not evidence. That's obviously part of a huge conspiracy against Mr. Hicks which will soon include the FBI. Right, retard?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It is a huge difference. Exactly where was I dishonest? Not having to justify yourself to the local media is a massive step away from not having to justify yourself at all. That is what Fingolfin_Noldor was implying, or am I mistaken?

Point to me where it is that it is a huge difference?

Or is dirty linen not meant to be aired for all to see?

[18-Till-I-Die]

Then who the fuck DO they justify themselves to? Who ELSE is going to ask fucktard?

Does the word "free press" exist in your world?

The "media" is supposed to ask questions and push for the truth because, and this will shock you, but most people dont have the reasources to ask those questions individually.

That is the entire PURPOSE of a fucking journalist, to ask questions and search for answers, whatever the case. That is why we have whistle blower laws and laws protecting a journalist's informants and such.

If you cannot be held acountable by the "media" then you may as well not be held acountable at all because no one else will ask or even KNOW how to ask or who to ask. That is why every fascist state that ever existed first and foremost, before all else, dismantle their free press. That is the canary in the coal mine for Very Bad Shit coming your way, when organizations are immune to public scrutiny.

[Big Phil]

"They don't have to" sounds an awful lot like apologist B.S. The fact that they aren't legally obligated to issue a statement isn't a reason for not doing so. They could issue a statement if they wanted, and it might help to mitigate an image of racism and corruption. If you are right and Hicks is lying about the incident, then the police or D.A. would, at worst, have nothing to lose in giving their side of events. They might be called liars by those determined to judge them, but others would take it into consideration. Like you, my first reaction was, "There must be more to the story; they couldn't have tasered a sleeping man!" The fact that they have refused to offer any explanation countering Hick's story, when they have no reason not to and every reason to explain themselves, makes it seem like they are stonewalling, probably hoping that if they ignore it the issue will go away, or at least won't get much media attention, since the victim was black.

Many organizations refuse to entertain certain accusations. That refusal doesn't make that accusation true, but it doesn't make it false either. I'm against jumping on the bandwagon here because what we do know doesn't add up. Why would the DA clear them, and then send it to the FBI for review? Is he a fucking moron? That's possible, but it's also possible that there is a lot more to this story than we think, and making conclusions based on one side of a story doesn't seem intelligent to me.

Aren't you SuperCop wannabe? That's why you're against the reasonable conclusion that the cops were out of line. It's no different from hating Derek Jeter because you're from Boston; group affiliation.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Oh shut the fuck up. Nobody is saying they don't have to justify their actions. They don't have to justify them to the local media. That's what I am saying.

Do you understand how inconsistant that is?

That's like saying "I'm not saying vampires suck blood, i'm saying they bite humans on the neck and drain them of blood."

Oh besides the fact that the DA cleared them of any wrong doing...

Because that completely disproves his story. Because no DA can buddy up to the cops. That has never happened. Ever.

That's obviously part of a huge conspiracy against Mr. Hicks which will soon include the FBI. Right, retard?

Uh, what makes you think the FBI will clear them to, genius?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Then who the fuck DO they justify themselves to? Who ELSE is going to ask fucktard?

They justify themselves to those in the criminal justice system. Judges, DAs. Those people. Not the local media.

Does the word "free press" exist in your world?

The "media" is supposed to ask questions and push for the truth because, and this will shock you, but most people dont have the reasources to ask those questions individually.

Indeed. That fact in no way obligates the police department to answer those questions.

That is the entire PURPOSE of a fucking journalist, to ask questions and search for answers, whatever the case. That is why we have whistle blower laws and laws protecting a journalist's informants and such.

Are you going to tell me something I don't know?

If you cannot be held acountable by the "media" then you may as well not be held acountable at all because no one else will ask or even KNOW how to ask or who to ask. That is why every fascist state that ever existed first and foremost, before all else, dismantle their free press. That is the canary in the coal mine for Very Bad Shit coming your way, when organizations are immune to public scrutiny.

No, nobody will ask. The DA won't ask. Mr. Hicks attorney won't ask. Neither will the FBI. Right, nobody is asking.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is a huge difference. Exactly where was I dishonest? Not having to justify yourself to the local media is a massive step away from not having to justify yourself at all. That is what Fingolfin_Noldor was implying, or am I mistaken?

Point to me where it is that it is a huge difference?

Or is dirty linen not meant to be aired for all to see?

Are you serious? It's not fucking obvious yet? There is a huge difference between being held accountable, and not being held accountable. The police are held accountable, but not to the media. You show me that law that states the police must hand over information to the media?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Aren't you SuperCop wannabe? That's why you're against the reasonable conclusion that the cops were out of line. It's no different from hating Derek Jeter because you're from Boston; group affiliation.

If you mean, am I an actual police officer? Then the answer is yes.

No, I'm not against it at all. I find certain facts of the story to cause me to not want to make a conclusion at this time. I said earlier that I'd be right behind everyone else if Mr. Hick's story is accurate. However, the fact that the DA signed off on it, and the FBI was sent this information brings pause to making that conclusion.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do you understand how inconsistant that is?

That's like saying "I'm not saying vampires suck blood, i'm saying they bite humans on the neck and drain them of blood."

LMAO. No, it's saying that the police aren't required to justify themselves to the media. It's not saying that they don't have to justify their actions period. Again, they must justify their actions to the local court system.

Because that completely disproves his story. Because no DA can buddy up to the cops. That has never happened. Ever.

No, it doesn't disprove his story. It does, however, bring pause to making a conclusion. You're telling me that your only reason for believing Mr. Hicks is because the police won't disclose their side of the story to the media?

Uh, what makes you think the FBI will clear them to, genius?

Well, that would be one hell of a stupid mistake by the DA. However, it doesn't make me think that the FBI will clear them. It wouldn't surprise me if they did though because I don't think the DA wants to face civil penalties, and a number of other consequences that will come his way for protecting some police officers that violated someones rights in their own home. That's a very bad thing in law enforcement, as it should be.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Yes well my father was a police officer and it doesnt bring me to disbelieve any of it. In fact the very fact the cops refuse to say shit about it makes it MORE probable in my mind.

The fact the DA signed off on it means jack. DAs can and have in the past had sweetheart deals with the cops and many are just as corrupt as any other politician. DAs, like cops, are not magical pixies incapable of wrongdoing like Tinkerbell (the Disney version not the original, whoreish version).

[18-Till-I-Die]

LMAO. No, it's saying that the police aren't required to justify themselves to the media. It's not saying that they don't have to justify their actions period. Again, they must justify their actions to the local court system.

And where and how have they done this, at all. The DA signed off on it but obviously the FBi is still investigating and if it were as simple as you make it sound then i doubt they would.

No, it doesn't disprove his story. It does, however, bring pause to making a conclusion. You're telling me that your only reason for believing Mr. Hicks is because the police won't disclose their side of the story to the media?

Yes.

It makes me wonder what is IN their side of the story. If it were nothing important at all then i would wonder why not disclose it PUBLICALLY to the people to make themselves appear on the up about it. There is NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL to hide anything unless something illegal happened.

Present ONE fucking reason? If someone claimed you hit them and you didnt you telling me you wouldnt refute it, you'd just roll your shoulders and move on? I pray you arent REALLY that pacifistic. And i actually am a pacifist.

And as for the DA not wanting bullshit to fall back in his face, that guy who went after the Duke "rape" suspects destroyed his own career because of nothing more than his own stupidity and myopic state of mind. So stop acting like it's so unreasonable.

Very bad law enforcement...God you said a mouthful, dude.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes well my father was a police officer and it doesnt bring me to disbelieve any of it. In fact the very fact the cops refuse to say shit about it makes it MORE probable in my mind.

I agree it doesn't look good.

The fact the DA signed off on it means jack. DAs can and have in the past had sweetheart deals with the cops and many are just as corrupt as any other politician. DAs, like cops, are not magical pixies incapable of wrongdoing like Tinkerbell (the Disney version not the original, whoreish version).

Again, I agree. The part that gives me the most pause is the DA sent it off to the FBI. Maybe he wants to get caught?

[Kamakazie Sith]

And where and how have they done this, at all. The DA signed off on it but obviously the FBi is still investigating and if it were as simple as you make it sound then i doubt they would.

Wait. What are you asking here? How at all did they justify their actions to the local court system? Umm the DA cleared them?

Actually, I'm trying to say it isn't simple at all. I don't know why you think I regard this matter as simple.

Yes.

It makes me wonder what is IN their side of the story. If it were nothing important at all then i would wonder why not disclose it PUBLICALLY to the people to make themselves appear on the up about it. There is NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL to hide anything unless something illegal happened.

Or there's an IA investigation going on. Which in that case they cannot release it.

Present ONE fucking reason? If someone claimed you hit them and you didnt you telling me you wouldnt refute it, you'd just roll your shoulders and move on? I pray you arent REALLY that pacifistic. And i actually am a pacifist.

Well, I am not a department with certain policies on how to handle this matter.

And as for the DA not wanting bullshit to fall back in his face, that guy who went after the Duke "rape" suspects destroyed his own career because of nothing more than his own stupidity and myopic state of mind. So stop acting like it's so unreasonable.

Well, that's a good point. I'll concede that it isn't unreasonable. I won't concede that it isn't reason to have pause in coming to a conclusion.

Very bad law enforcement...God you said a mouthful, dude.

I'm sure you'll actually be more detailed in the future when you actually know what you're trying to say. Till then I look forward to your vague statements.

[18-Till-I-Die]

You KEEP throwing up this shit about the DA like that's the be-all-end-all of the matter. And then you turn around and say that it's both reasonable that the DA is a fucktard, AND that internal affairs is investigating them, plus we know the FBI is...so what is your argument? You yourself just pointed out like eleventy billion different ways the shit could be hitting the fan.

And yet you still dont seem to grasp why it's a bad fucking idea for them to be so secretive. Their policies are full of shit. All it does is make them look guilty if they arent, which i doubt, or make them look even MORE guilty if they are because anyone with half a braincell to work with will think they're stonewalling. Weather they are or not is irrelevent if that is the public's perception because that is why many, many people dont trust cops.

It makes them seem untouchable, it smacks of elitism, and it's not even a logical practice. Surely they can confirm or deny certain parts of the story without compromising the investigation?

Actually, I'm trying to say it isn't simple at all. I don't know why you think I regard this matter as simple.

Because, against all logic, you have taken the fact that one guy "signed off" on this (which doesnt even adress weather or not it was excessive force, only weather or not it can be justified under the law) as some kind of high water mark in the discussion without refuting Mr. Hick's story or presenting evidence for believing the cops' story. And done this while admiting that it's possible the DA is bullshitting or stupid.

I'm sure you'll actually be more detailed in the future when you actually know what you're trying to say. Till then I look forward to your vague statements.

I was making fun of how nonchalant or indifferent you are about this whole thing, like it's funny or sarcastic. "That'd be very bad in law enforcement" just struck me as some attempt at a sarcastic "stinger" or something. But in retrospect, i may be wrong and it wasnt sarcasm, in which case mea culpa.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You KEEP throwing up this shit about the DA like that's the be-all-end-all of the matter. And then you turn around and say that it's both reasonable that the DA is a fucktard, AND that internal affairs is investigating them, plus we know the FBI is...so what is your argument? You yourself just pointed out like eleventy billion different ways the shit could be hitting the fan.

I apologize for that confusion. What I'm saying is the matter is clearly more complicated than this one story paints it to be, and because of this I personally don't feel it is wise to make conclusions.

And yet you still dont seem to grasp why it's a bad fucking idea for them to be so secretive. Their policies are full of shit. All it does is make them look guilty if they arent, which i doubt, or make them look even MORE guilty if they are because anyone with half a braincell to work with will think they're stonewalling. Weather they are or not is irrelevent if that is the public's perception because that is why many, many people dont trust cops.

There are reasons for not releasing information on current internal investigations. Mostly it's done to protect the involved officers as much as possible from public assault.

It makes them seem untouchable, it smacks of elitism, and it's not even a logical practice. Surely they can confirm or deny certain parts of the story without compromising the investigation?

Yet, it's a common practice across the country. DA's don't enjoy writing out long explanations to the newspapers. If it's a very popular case they might, but this doesn't seem like it's that popular.

Because, against all logic, you have taken the fact that one guy "signed off" on this (which doesnt even adress weather or not it was excessive force, only weather or not it can be justified under the law) as some kind of high water mark in the discussion without refuting Mr. Hick's story or presenting evidence for believing the cops' story. And done this while admiting that it's possible the DA is bullshitting or stupid.

Yes, and you're saying "Mr. Hicks is telling the truth because stuff like this has happened before" well, I'm saying "Mr. Hicks could be lying because the DA cleared them, and good citizens like Mr. Hicks have lied about police actions to get some money before"

What proof has Mr. Hicks given that this went down exactly how he says it has besides his own word?

I was making fun of how nonchalant or indifferent you are about this whole thing, like it's funny or sarcastic. "That'd be very bad in law enforcement" just struck me as some attempt at a sarcastic "stinger" or something. But in retrospect, i may be wrong and it wasnt sarcasm, in which case mea culpa.

Actually, I'm not. I do take this very seriously, and while it might not seem like it I'm one of the biggest supportors of harsh punishment for police that abuse their authority.

[Molyneux]

Let me ask everyone a question. You obviously don't trust the police involved in this matter, and that I can completely understand. Why do you distrust the DA? After the FBI gets done with this will you not trust them if they rule it justified? What can they do to prove their story to you over Mr. Hicks?

Ooh, ooh, me!

"Give their version of events"

LMAO. Exactly what obligation is the police department under to prove its story to the local media?

Answer - None

That's why Mr. Hicks will have to sue, and then the facts will come out.

I wonder - do you realise that you didn't ask what the police department was obligated to do, but rather what they should do if they want to be given any credence?

Up 'til now, all we've heard from the PD is "We didn't do nuffin". When presented with only one series of events that fits the evidence, it's foolish to discard that over a simple denial.

[Thanas]

Because it is not a stretch of the imagination that the DA is a rascist or sucking up to the police department?

I have actually met both types of DAs. Sure, there are good ones, but I have also met my share of rascist scumbag DAs.

Also, if he did decide not to press charges, why does he not even release a small press statement outlining his decision?

Because he's under no such obligation to do so...

Way to not answer the question. Are you trying to make this into a game of obligations? If so, what's your point? Since when does having no obligation to do anything automatically disproves another story?

Honestly, what evidence or statements can you present that disproves Hick's story or exonorate the police? What evidence has the police given to the public? None. Over the course of several months. No evidence.

So what is preventing me from believing Mr. Hicks until the police comes clean? Nothing. Has this sort of thing happened in the past? Yes. In fact of all the police forces in all the civilized countries, not a single one has such a crappy reputation for being rascist scumbags than the several US police forces.

So you can take your apologistic idiocy to another thread. Please do not bother to waste anymore time when you have no actual argument.

[Glocksman]

Has this sort of thing happened in the past? Yes.

US police departments are controlled at the local level, so you really can't condemn, say, the West Buttfuck, California police as having the same institutionalized racism that forces like the Pittsburgh police apparently have.

If this was the first incident of its kind, I'd be more likely to give the PD any benefit of the doubt.
However, the PPD has a history of going after prosperous looking black guys.
Just look up Jonny Gammage and Johnny Barnes if you want details.
Granted these are only two incidents, but they made the national news because they involved Steelers football players.
How many incidents take place that never make the national news?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Are you serious? It's not fucking obvious yet? There is a huge difference between being held accountable, and not being held accountable. The police are held accountable, but not to the media. You show me that law that states the police must hand over information to the media?

Oh sure, but do I see the police doing anything to convince the public except stonewalling here? Why, do I see the police inviting the public to news conferences? So apparently, to you, the main news medium is an invalid communication method of convincing the public that they are doing their jobs. Is this "accountability" of yours in name or in action? So far, you have done nothing to convince me otherwise but except that you have an apparent distaste for the media.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I wonder - do you realise that you didn't ask what the police department was obligated to do, but rather what they should do if they want to be given any credence?

They fulfilled what they were obligated to do. They must justify their actions to the local authority, in this case the DA.

Up 'til now, all we've heard from the PD is "We didn't do nuffin". When presented with only one series of events that fits the evidence, it's foolish to discard that over a simple denial.

The only thing that fits the evidence is that he has taser wounds, and we know there was a taser used. What evidence do we have that he was sleeping? If I missed it then please point it out.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Way to not answer the question. Are you trying to make this into a game of obligations? If so, what's your point? Since when does having no obligation to do anything automatically disproves another story?

I did answer your question. You asked why doesn't he release a small press statement, and my answer was because he isn't under any obligation to do so.

Also, take your misrepresentation of my position and cram it directly up your ass. I at no time said that Mr. Hicks story is wrong. This entire time I've been against jumping on the bandwagon against the police because of certain questions. I like how everyone pretty much considers the DA judgment on the issue completely irrelevant just because he failed to issue a statement to the insignificant number of newspapers that have printed this story. Maybe, if there was more public attention he would...

Honestly, what evidence or statements can you present that disproves Hick's story or exonorate the police? What evidence has the police given to the public? None. Over the course of several months. No evidence.

What evidence can you give that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the police did what Mr. Hicks states? All we have are the taser marks, and his word. Sorry, but that isn't overly convincing to me when you have the DA who has cleared them of wrong doing, and it was sent off to the FBI. Again, those facts make me take pause before deciding which side to take.

Just to be clear despite what you may think I have not taken a side on this issue.

So what is preventing me from believing Mr. Hicks until the police comes clean? Nothing. Has this sort of thing happened in the past? Yes. In fact of all the police forces in all the civilized countries, not a single one has such a crappy reputation for being rascist scumbags than the several US police forces.

Unfortunately, there is still a reasonable level of doubt. Which is my point...

LMAO. Have you been living under a rock? There are many more police forces in the world that are much worse than US police forces in matters of racism. See African Police.

So you can take your apologistic idiocy to another thread. Please do not bother to waste anymore time when you have no actual argument.

Save the dramatics for someone who cares.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh sure, but do I see the police doing anything to convince the public except stonewalling here? Why, do I see the police inviting the public to news conferences? So apparently, to you, the main news medium is an invalid communication method of convincing the public that they are doing their jobs. Is this "accountability" of yours in name or in action? So far, you have done nothing to convince me otherwise but except that you have an apparent distaste for the media.

Well, that's a good question. How big of an issue has this situation raised in North Braddock? Is the public calling for an explanation, or is it just a few newspapers, and Mr. Hicks?

[Thanas]

I like how everyone pretty much considers the DA judgment on the issue completely irrelevant just because he failed to issue a statement to the insignificant number of newspapers that have printed this story. Maybe, if there was more public attention he would...

The newspaper which is the most read newspaper in western pennsylvania is somehow insignificant to the DA who will at some point need to get reelected?

What evidence can you give that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the police did what Mr. Hicks states? All we have are the taser marks, and his word. Sorry, but that isn't overly convincing to me when you have the DA who has cleared them of wrong doing, and it was sent off to the FBI. Again, those facts make me take pause before deciding which side to take.

Just to be clear despite what you may think I have not taken a side on this issue.

Look, there is nothing from the police. No statement. There is no conflicting version of events from either the police or the DA. Why?

I apologize if I have misread your position, but every post you have posted here is in the defence of the police. You have not at once even acknowledged that Mr. Hicks may have been telling the truth.

So, going by what we have now there is a story telling me that the police abused a man, and there's nothing from the police. No other version. Nothing. So actually there's no reason not to jump on the bandwagon of condemming the officers involved, since at this moment, there is no other version. You are just arguing from nothing, trying to explain that because there is nothing, there must be something there that exonerates the officers. Well, if there is, why is it not being released?

If the police publish a credible version of events that explains every single point raised by Mr. Hicks, then yes, you might have an argument. But right now you are simply argumenting ex nihil.

In fact of all the police forces in all the civilized countries, not a single one has such a crappy reputation for being rascist scumbags than the several US police forces.

LMAO. Have you been living under a rock? There are many more police forces in the world that are much worse than US police forces in matters of racism. See African Police.

Please note the big, bolded word.

[Xisiqomelir]

Aren't you SuperCop wannabe? That's why you're against the reasonable conclusion that the cops were out of line.

Thanks, I was wondering what was going on with this crazy defensive spin.